MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21734, 27 August 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

v Friday, August 26, (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) MOTOR FIRM SUED. Aero Motors, Ltd., proceeded against Thomas Evered Steele on a claim for £96 3s, the; amount alleged to be due for materials supplied to and work done for the defendant.—The defendant counter-claimed to recover £B2 6s as special damages and £SO as general damages. The counter-claim set out that the plaintiff verbally contracted with the defendant to do certain repairs to an International truck belonging to defendant, which had been soriqpsly damaged as the result of an accident. It was alleged that the plaintiff did not execute the repairs in a good and workmanlike manner or within a reasonable time, and that, as the result of plaintiff’s faulty workmanship in effecting the repairs, the engine of the truck had been irreparably damaged and the defendant has been involved in expense. The truck (it was alleged) had never been satisfactory since the repairs were effected. In April the plaintiff company subsequently effected repairs to another truck belonging to defendant, and by reason of faulty workmanship caused damage to the bearings of the front wheels, and another set of bearings had to be procured and fitted at a cost of £7 10s 6d. In respect of a third truck belonging to the defendant, it was claimed that the plaintiff company was employed in May to, dismantle and repair the steering gear, but did bo in such an unworkmanlike i manner that defendant had to have the, work done again at a cost of £3.—Counsel for the plaintiffs said that the facts were somewhat peculiar. The plaintiff company were garage proprietors, and the defendant was a carrier with a fleet of trucks. The defendant employed plaintiff from January until May on all his work. Various cheques were received, and work was done on different trucks. The real cause of contention centred on one International truck which . met with a serious accident, so serious that it might have been better tff'liave let the truck lie and the insurance company pay out. However, the insurance company took the view that salvage was worth something, and eventually the work was given to the plaintiff company and done. The extent of the damage originally could be shown by the fact that the chassis frame was so badly bent by the accident that it had to be dismantled to the last nut and bolt. The plaintiffs were concerned only with the mechanical work, repairs, and reassembling. There was a trial, and the truck was running all right with the exception of a knock in the engine, which was rectified. The defendant signed a release to the insurance company, stating that he was satisfied with the work done. The insurance company claimed that it was only liable to pay out on' the value of the car before the accident, and eventually it was agreed that defendant should pay £SO. He paid £3O to the plaintiff, so that only £2O was owing by Steel in respee' that one particular truck. At a subsequent date Steele paid £5, ami there was still no complaint. It was not until proceedings were taken that any complaint, was made. The items were never brought to plaintiff's notice till the counter-claim was filed.—ln support of the plaintiff’s claim evidence was tendered that the work had been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and that there was no undue delay in doing the work. For the defence, it was maintained that the work had not been carried out properly. It was unsatisfactory with regard to the engine block and the big-end bearings; moreover, the job took three months, whereas it should have been completed in five weeks, and the defendant was put to considerable expense and trouble through the delay.—The defendant tendered evidence in support of his case and detailed the trouble he had had with the lorry since he had received it back from the plaintiff company.—Further evidence on behalf of the defendant was given by Charles James Lowery and Thomas H. Lawry, and the hearing was adjourned until Monday at 10 a.m.